Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's recommendations to use health technologies only in research

  • Irfan A. Dhalla (a1), Sarah Garner (a2), Kalipso Chalkidou (a2) and Peter Littlejohns (a2)

Background: The concept of using public funds to pay for healthcare interventions only when provided in the context of ongoing research is receiving increasing attention worldwide. Nevertheless, these decisions are often controversial and implementation can be problematic.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the views of United Kingdom stakeholders on the current arrangements for implementing “only in research” (OIR) decisions and to investigate how improvements might be made.

Methods: After an internal review of previous OIR decisions issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), deliberations by NICE's Citizens Council, and an international workshop convened by NICE and the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, thirteen key stakeholders and experts from academia, industry, government, and the National Health Service (NHS) were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide. Interview transcripts were subjected to a framework-based analysis using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software.

Results: All interviewees endorsed the use of the OIR option. There was a high degree of consensus for several suggestions regarding how the use of the OIR option might be improved. For example, there was universal agreement that a formal process should be established to prioritize research needs arising from OIR decisions and that funds for publicly funded research projects should be channeled in a manner that would better motivate healthcare providers to participate in OIR-related research.

Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest several potential modifications of the OIR pathway in the United Kingdom and may also be helpful to health technology assessment agencies in other countries that already use or are considering using an OIR-like option to reduce the uncertainty inherent in health technology assessment.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

1. P Brown , K Brunnhuber , K Chalkidou , Health research: How to formulate research recommendations. BMJ. 2006;333:804.

2. K Chalkidou , A Hoy , P Littlejohns . Making a decision to wait for more evidence: When the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a technology only in the context of research. J R Soc Med. 2007;100:453460.

3. K Chalkidou , T Walley , A Culyer , P Littlejohns , A Hoy . Evidence-informed evidence-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13:167173.

4. I Chalmers . Addressing uncertainties about the effects of treatments offered to NHS patients: Whose responsibility? J R Soc Med. 2007;100:440441.

5. KP Claxton , MJ Sculpher . Using value of information analysis to prioritise health research: Some lessons from recent UK experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1055.

9. R Goeree , L Levin . Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: The PRUFE Framework-an integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1143.

10. GM Higginbottom . Sampling issues in qualitative research. Nurse Res. 2004;12:719.

12 AS Kesselheim , MA Fischer , J Avorn . The rise and fall of Natrecor for congestive heart failure: Implications for drug policy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:10951102.

14. G Lyratzopoulos , H Patrick , B Campbell . Registers needed for new interventional procedures. Lancet. 2008;371:17341736.

15. N Mays , C Pope . Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000;320:50.

28. S Palmer , PC Smith . Incorporating option values into the economic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 2000;19:755766.

29. C Pope , S Ziebland , N Mays . Analysing qualitative data. In: C Pope , N Mays , eds. Qualitative research in health care. 3rd ed.Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2006.

30. J. Raftery Review of NICE's recommendations,1999–2005. BMJ. 2006;332:12661268.

31. M. Rawlins In pursuit of quality: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet. 1999; 353:10791082.

33. J Ritchie , L Spencer . Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: A Bryman , RG Burgess , eds. Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994.

34. S Sauerland , M Maegele . A CRASH landing in severe head injury. Lancet. 2004;364:12911292.

35. EJ. Topol Failing the public health—Rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:17071709.

36. SR Tunis , SD Pearson . Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's ‘Coverage With Evidence Development’. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:12181230.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 15 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 73 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 29th June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.